[Goose]

Unfortunately RFIs are a dime for several dozen. Means very little. I know, we answered lots of them over the years :-). Oftentimes it was in response by a legitimate need that the military bureaucracy had no intention of actually satisfying. They needed to "do something", and the RFI was it. Then everybody forgets all about it. Of course, we do need such a development, but we need it now, not 24 months from now.

My understanding is that an "RFP" was what was just released, the RFI was from a few months ago, 16 companies apparently replied with proposals. Speculation is that the existing PJDAM prototype from Boeing may fit the parameters, so perhaps could move quickly. Why HARMs are not being used to do this task I do not know. The range of the JDAM-ER might be the main reason, along with it being cheaper. It may be that sticking a "modernized" version of the HARM low-band seeker on the bomb is a possible way to go, especially if it is being designed for L band targets only. Whatever is done can't alter the flight characteristics of the bomb much or it will not work well.

Hopefully an updated guidance package to evade Russian jamming will be incorporated if the PJDAM is chosen. The Storm Shadows and SCALPs certainly have seemed accurate in their limited usage, not sure how feasible it would be to adapt some of their features such as the IR camera for terminal guidance.

The GLSDB initiative took about a year and was only somewhat effective when it happened, hopefully this turns out better and as quick as possible.

I didn't see anything about an RFP in the X posts, but I assume you are referring to something along the lines of
https://www.yahoo.com/news/air-force-che...26296.html

They asked all 16 companies that responded to the RFI for a proposal. It will be interesting to see how many do. IMO it appears this program is a LONG way out. A clue will be how quickly they down-select to two companies. This will of course require another RFP round, at a minimum. Coming out of Eglin also is an indication this is not a "mainstream" requirement. That however may not be all bad as some significant amount of "procedure" can be short-circuited. That said, development of an entirely "new" weapon is going to be a relatively long process.

The affordability requirement undoubtedly makes weapons developed previously non-starters. As designed they are too expensive. I dearly hope the USAF does not accept an approach from a vendor saying "We have the technical solution. All we need to do is figure out how to build it cheaper." The "make it cheaper" approach has a long and bitter history of failing. For one thing the manufacture's corporate culture is not oriented towards affordability. Second, the only practical way to make existing weapons more affordable almost always requires significant redesign of "important" sections. This requires testing everything again. Usually there was a reason the more expensive approach was initially used and the redesigned weapon doesn't work as well/at all.

I am actually much more excited about the following from May 3 of which I was unaware:
https://www.twz.com/air/jdam-er-winged-b...to-ukraine

The Pentagon announced today that the U.S. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) had awarded Cypress, California-headquartered Scientific Applications and Research Associates Inc. a contract valued at $23,554,341 for “the acquisition of Home-on GPS Jam seekers” and the “integration of the extended range seekers into existing Joint Direct Attack Munition wing kits.”
“This contract involves Foreign Military Sales to Ukraine,” the Pentagon’s announcement also noted.

The contractor is a smaller company and they are only building seekers, not weapons. Existing seekers can do this job, so building "adapter packages" could be a reasonable approach. Using existing IP and/or components could greatly reduce risk and development time. Even a de novo implementation could be done reasonably quickly. It is much more likely IMO that an organization like this has a prayer of executing on time and under budget. Companies like Boeing and Lockheed inherently cannot.

[Goose]

Unfortunately RFIs are a dime for several dozen. Means very little. I know, we answered lots of them over the years :-). Oftentimes it was in response by a legitimate need that the military bureaucracy had no intention of actually satisfying. They needed to "do something", and the RFI was it. Then everybody forgets all about it. Of course, we do need such a development, but we need it now, not 24 months from now.

My understanding is that an "RFP" was what was just released, the RFI was from a few months ago, 16 companies apparently replied with proposals. Speculation is that the existing PJDAM prototype from Boeing may fit the parameters, so perhaps could move quickly. Why HARMs are not being used to do this task I do not know. The range of the JDAM-ER might be the main reason, along with it being cheaper. It may be that sticking a "modernized" version of the HARM low-band seeker on the bomb is a possible way to go, especially if it is being designed for L band targets only. Whatever is done can't alter the flight characteristics of the bomb much or it will not work well.

Hopefully an updated guidance package to evade Russian jamming will be incorporated if the PJDAM is chosen. The Storm Shadows and SCALPs certainly have seemed accurate in their limited usage, not sure how feasible it would be to adapt some of their features such as the IR camera for terminal guidance.

The GLSDB initiative took about a year and was only somewhat effective when it happened, hopefully this turns out better and as quick as possible.

I didn't see anything about an RFP in the X posts, but I assume you are referring to something along the lines of
https://www.yahoo.com/news/air-force-che...26296.html

They asked all 16 companies that responded to the RFI for a proposal. It will be interesting to see how many do. IMO it appears this program is a LONG way out. A clue will be how quickly they down-select to two companies. This will of course require another RFP round, at a minimum. Coming out of Eglin also is an indication this is not a "mainstream" requirement. That however may not be all bad as some significant amount of "procedure" can be short-circuited. That said, development of an entirely "new" weapon is going to be a relatively long process.

The affordability requirement undoubtedly makes weapons developed previously non-starters. As designed they are too expensive. I dearly hope the USAF does not accept an approach from a vendor saying "We have the technical solution. All we need to do is figure out how to build it cheaper." The "make it cheaper" approach has a long and bitter history of failing. For one thing the manufacture's corporate culture is not oriented towards affordability. Second, the only practical way to make existing weapons more affordable almost always requires significant redesign of "important" sections. This requires testing everything again. Usually there was a reason the more expensive approach was initially used and the redesigned weapon doesn't work as well/at all.

I am actually much more excited about the following from May 3 of which I was unaware:
https://www.twz.com/air/jdam-er-winged-b...to-ukraine

The Pentagon announced today that the U.S. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) had awarded Cypress, California-headquartered Scientific Applications and Research Associates Inc. a contract valued at $23,554,341 for “the acquisition of Home-on GPS Jam seekers” and the “integration of the extended range seekers into existing Joint Direct Attack Munition wing kits.”
“This contract involves Foreign Military Sales to Ukraine,” the Pentagon’s announcement also noted.

The contractor is a smaller company and they are only building seekers, not weapons. Existing seekers can do this job, so building "adapter packages" could be a reasonable approach. Using existing IP and/or components could greatly reduce risk and development time. Even a de novo implementation could be done reasonably quickly. It is much more likely IMO that an organization like this has a prayer of executing on time and under budget. Companies like Boeing and Lockheed inherently cannot.